Garmin Oregon 2.86 Beta

February 9, 2009

I believe I found a bug, but I apologize if it has already been reported in another version.

When navigating to a cache and on the Map page, select the cache and click on it's name in order to see the description. The description will be blank.

However,

1) If you select the description from the Geocache page, the description will show.

2) If you select the cache and click on it's name in the map page while NOT navigating to it, the description will be displayed correctly.

This worked as described for several caches in my area.

-Keith

Was able to reproduce this error as well.

Does not do that on mine.

3k · February 9, 2009

I think that this is probably the same bug that has been around for awhile. From the issues list on the wiki:

Selecting the geocache on the map page which is the current off-road destination results in a blank page with just a "Go" and "return" button. The Go button doesn't appear to have any function although the return button still works. (2.85)

2.1k · February 9, 2009

One more note on the overall Oregon performance. I bought and paid for a unit that is WAAS compatible for a reason. As you can tell in the images in my previous post, it DOES matter! The fact that WAAS never shows up under even the slightest obstruction of the sky (WAAS sats are solid in my basement with no windows with the 60csx) has me wondering why I paid $500 for non-WAAS operation. Heck, you'd have to go back nearly a decade to pay that much for a non-waas unit. I don't have it anymore but I'd be willing to bet my old Maggie 315 lays down a better track than the Oregon despite it's 10 year old electronics and design.

I hate to get technical on Garmin but they essentially sold me a product that does not operate as advertised. The WAAS does not work under normal operating conditions (an unobstructed view from horizon to horizon is not normal operating conditions.). What I'm saying here is that the squeeky wheel always seems to get the grease with Garmin. Most of us are reading this thread because we have Oregons so why don't we make the sqeaky wheel get louder in Garmins ear by calling tech support and voicing our discontent? If the complaints pile-up maybe they'll put someone competent in charge of fixing the unit software. If you feel that you deserve a product that works better than 10 year old technology call and let them know. I know I am.

Edited February 9, 2009 by yogazoo

February 9, 2009

I agree with you. I never got a WAAS signal (or EGNOS in my case) with my Oregon, while I get it most of the times on my Vista HCX. I will email/call Garmin and see what they say.

One more note on the overall Oregon performance. I bought and paid for a unit that is WAAS compatible for a reason. As you can tell in the images in my previous post, it DOES matter! The fact that WAAS never shows up under even the slightest obstruction of the sky (WAAS sats are solid in my basement with no windows with the 60csx) has me wondering why I paid $500 for non-WAAS operation. Heck, you'd have to go back nearly a decade to pay that much for a non-waas unit. I don't have it anymore but I'd be willing to bet my old Maggie 315 lays down a better track than the Oregon despite it's 10 year old electronics and design.

I hate to get technical on Garmin but they essentially sold me a product that does not operate as advertised. The WAAS does not work under normal operating conditions (an unobstructed view from horizon to horizon is not normal operating conditions.). What I'm saying here is that the squeeky wheel always seems to get the grease with Garmin. Most of us are reading this thread because we have Oregons so why don't we make the sqeaky wheel get louder in Garmins ear by calling tech support and voicing our discontent? If the complaints pile-up maybe they'll put someone competent in charge of fixing the unit software. If you feel that you deserve a product that works better than 10 year old technology call and let them know. I know I am.

February 9, 2009

What is the reaction of garmin by sending a mail to OregonBeta@garmin.com. ?

Did anyone get an answer?

February 9, 2009

I think that this is probably the same bug that has been around for awhile. From the issues list on the wiki:

Selecting the geocache on the map page which is the current off-road destination results in a blank page with just a "Go" and "return" button. The Go button doesn't appear to have any function although the return button still works. (2.85)

Yep. That is it. Sorry for the repetition.

2.1k · February 9, 2009

What is the reaction of garmin by sending a mail to OregonBeta@garmin.com. ?

Did anyone get an answer?

I sent them an e-mail at OregonBeta@garmin.com and got no response yet. I do however make a weekly call to remind them that they haven't yet addressed my issues with the Oregon.

3.1k · February 9, 2009

What is the reaction of garmin by sending a mail to OregonBeta@garmin.com. ?

Did anyone get an answer?

I sent them an e-mail at OregonBeta@garmin.com and got no response yet. I do however make a weekly call to remind them that they haven't yet addressed my issues with the Oregon.

How has that been going for you?

I applaud your tenacity.

2.1k · February 9, 2009

Well Tequila, we all see how accurate the Oregon is (ha), and we're still missing waypoint averaging, so to answer your question. Not so good.

I'm filled with hope however because when I (and others) brought up the fact that the barometer logging didn't work correctly on the Colorado (almost a year ago) they came out with a fix a few weeks after. I'm not saying I was the one who prompted it but I may have contributed to them putting out a fix. I was a constant pain in their arse. Just sayin', it doesn't hurt. When you pay primo dollars for something that has some rather half-a**ed functionality I expect it to be fixed. Call me crazy.

Edited February 9, 2009 by yogazoo

February 9, 2009

I went on a hike today with a 60CSX and an Oregon 300. The following images depict my results.

A few notes. 1) The 60 had WAAS correction the entire time. Oregon did not for the entirety of the test.

on the test 2) I allowed the units to warm up for 30 minutes before beginning to record the tracklog.

3) I had the units 2 feet apart in a verticle position (antenna up).

4) Both units were set to record at 1-second intervals.

...snip

I work with digital aerial photography and mapping for a living. From those screencaps you show it looks like there could be a coordinate system issue between the two units. I see your point about the Oregon being more herky-jerky but the whole track looks to be displaced to the north. Is the displacement consistent between your comparisons? I just got my Oregon today so it will be a while before I'll get to QC data.

Matt

Edited February 9, 2009 by mattalbr

2.1k · February 9, 2009

From those screencaps you show it looks like there could be a coordinate system issue between the two units.

Matt

Nah man. Any time you transfer data like this to your computer it defaults to WGS84. It doesn't matter what coordinate system you have set on the unit. The only time it matters is for manual data input/recording via user interface on the unit.

Here is an example of the coordinate information found in the code of a run of the mill geocaching GPX:

"<keywords>cache, geocache</keywords>

</metadata>

<name>GC1A8J3</name>"

Notice how no projection data is recorded or needed. It is known by any program that GPX files are WGS84, ddd.dddd. That's why when you drag and drop any GPX file into Google Earth it knows percisely where to put it. The same with CVS custom POI's, if you dont have the coordinate system in WGS84, ddd.ddddd, it won't load onto your GPS.

GPX's straight from your unit or from MapSource will always be the same (WGS84). And since this data was extracted straight from the units and placed into Google Earth there was no conversion, no changing of anything.

There is no coordinate system issue in my comparison. The difference in this case, I'm afraid, is the WAAS correction. 60csx has it, the Oregon does not.

Edited February 9, 2009 by yogazoo

2.1k · February 10, 2009

UPDATE:

Garmin actually e-mailed back from that beta address and asked me to send them the tracks I posted in this thread. WOW, garmin responded to my e-mail about problems with their beta release. This isn't normal Garmin behaviour.

Edited February 10, 2009 by yogazoo

3k · February 10, 2009

From those screencaps you show it looks like there could be a coordinate system issue between the two units.

Matt

Nah man. Any time you transfer data like this to your computer it defaults to WGS84. It doesn't matter what coordinate system you have set on the unit. The only time it matters is for manual data input/recording via user interface on the unit.

Here is an example of the coordinate information found in the code of a run of the mill geocaching GPX:

"<keywords>cache, geocache</keywords>

<bounds minlat="46.572467" minlon="-112.030633" maxlat="46.572467" maxlon="-112.030633" />

</metadata>

<wpt lat="46.572467" lon="-112.030633">

<time>2008-04-06T00:00:00.0000000-07:00</time>

<name>GC1A8J3</name>"

Notice how no projection data is recorded or needed. It is known by any program that GPX files are WGS84, ddd.dddd. That's why when you drag and drop any GPX file into Google Earth it knows percisely where to put it. The same with CVS custom POI's, if you dont have the coordinate system in WGS84, ddd.ddddd, it won't load onto your GPS.

GPX's straight from your unit or from MapSource will always be the same (WGS84). And since this data was extracted straight from the units and placed into Google Earth there was no conversion, no changing of anything.

There is no coordinate system issue in my comparison. The difference in this case, I'm afraid, is the WAAS correction. 60csx has it, the Oregon does not.

GPX file format specifies that the coordinates must be in WGS84 format:

http://www.topografix.com/GPX/1/1/#type_latitudeType

3k · February 10, 2009

UPDATE:

Garmin actually e-mailed back from that beta address and asked me to send them the tracks I posted in this thread. WOW, garmin responded to my e-mail about problems with their beta release. This isn't normal Garmin behaviour.

Cool, let us know how it goes!

February 10, 2009

This isn't normal Garmin behaviour.

No!!! I came from Magellan because you guys said Garmin love us

2.1k · February 10, 2009

People are very quick to forget just how good garmin's customer support has been; online, on the phone. These forums always used to be singing their praises.. I still have good interactions with them and receive prompt replies. They fell down a bit on their inability to get their stories right about some mapping releases last year, what looks like untested softare releases and well.. the CO and it's support

2.1k · February 10, 2009

I agree with you Maingray, I guess what I meant was that Garmin, for better or for worse, always seems to have this giant wall up between the user and the developers. Their customer service is great but they give the impression of not listening to or not caring what their customers suggest about or would like to see in their products. You can e-mail them the Wiki wishlist until you're blue in the face with not so much as a peep in response. Unless you have something that doesn't work, they just don't seem to care about how you feel about a particular feature or lack thereof.

Unless there are hardware dead ends, why dont they take what their customers say to heart and fix some of the stuff on the Colorado and Oregon lines? Whatever the reason, it gives the impression that they just don't care.

When I received the reply from Garmin tech support it was a surprise to see that the developers just might be curious about some test data that one of their customers gathered. It was a bridge from consumer to the developers that you just don't see that often with Garmin.

Here's something to monitor. When I e-mailed the Garmin engineer the tracks from my 60csx and Oregon I also included a piece about adding Waypoint Averaging. I made the case for this feature and included evidence that people would really appreciate having it, especially geocachers. It will be curious to see whether or not they listen. I wasn't about to let my tiny ray of light dissapear without throwing in something about Waypoint Averaging.

Edited February 10, 2009 by yogazoo

2.1k · February 10, 2009

Yup, I agree with the wall. I'm sure it's simply due to their size and some silly bloated QA procedures. It's how a company like delorme which seems to have a small GPS unit division can apply the personal touch, maintain a very intimate forum..and win customers. Plus, and I think this is key, Delorme rate geocaching as a serious application for a GPS...I believe Garmin have dropped this concept recently and focus on the money-spinning auto-units.

February 10, 2009

OK, I'm a bit less worried then

I'll put mine back in the box and wait for v3.0

No, I won't, but I might keep the E600 up todate and running in parallel.

February 11, 2009

I noticed that there is some disscussion about the Oregon and track logs started by yogazoo so I thought I'd post these and see what you guys think.

The to the right of pin it is pointing to where I enterd the railway station and the track at the bottom is the first platform accrucy 10ft.

Track of journy on train: top leftt outward trip, bottom right inward trip, accrucy 60ft

Same train journy but showing where the outward track started to mach up with the inward trip (slight signal loss as you can see on the inward trip) accrucy 60ft

Taken with Oregon 300 v2.6.

Still havn't been able to ge WAAS at all even though my Vista HCX would have it most of the time when it could get a signal.

Any thoughts?

2.1k · February 11, 2009

Thanks for posting the screen shots Hampsire-Hog. Looks like you're experiencing the same jumpyness and erratic tracklogs that others are. We'll just have to wait for the next software update for things to change.

2.1k · February 11, 2009

Double Post. I love the server these forums are on. sluggish, locks up often, drops out frequently. It's Great!!!!

Edited February 11, 2009 by yogazoo

February 11, 2009

Do you think It might be a good idea to send them to Garmin as you did?

Edit to add: any ideas as to when the next update might be, maybe aproxametly?

Edited February 11, 2009 by Hampshire_Hog

February 11, 2009

Just rememberd.

Also when approaching the station and the GPS said I was (I was) down to about 350' 400' from the the distance the distance stated and then started increasing and when I was standing outside the entrance it read 1.1mi from the destination. This also happend on a earlier routing test.

Edited: I'm sure they keep moving the keys arround on thid keyorad

Edited February 11, 2009 by Hampshire_Hog

2.1k · February 11, 2009

Just rememberd.

Also when approaching the station and the GPS said I was (I was) down to about 350' 400' from the the distance the distance stated increasing and when I was standing outside the entrance it read 1.1mi from the destination. This also happend on a earlier routing test.

Edited: I'm sure they keep moving the keys arround on thid keyorad

Ya I'd send to Garmin at the address on the first post on this forum. It would be one thing if this wasn't an issue addressed in the update but positional accuracy at slow speeds with cover is specifically addressed and they apparently screwed it up.

ADD: it's not the keys on the keyboard, it's the sloth-like churning of the server at times.

February 11, 2009

So when you are walking towards a pont you going to by the routing function, it is supossed to be accurate now since the update?

I think the sloth sleeps a lot

Edited February 11, 2009 by Hampshire_Hog

February 11, 2009

1.) @Hampshire Hog: In your post you said that the screenshots were taken with Oregon 300 v2.6. The latest "stable" release is v2.8 and there are two beta versions: v2.85 beta and v2.86 beta. It would be interesting to see accuracy tests with those versions.

2.) After some more field trips I think that v2.86 beta does see more satellites under heavy tree cover or between buildings than v2.85 beta. However, v2.86 frequently tells me that it is within 2 meters of a waypoint when a couple of seconds later it thinks that the waypoint is 15 to 20 meters away. Unfortunately I don't have any logs to share (yet).

3.) Since v2.86 beta kind of drove me crazy I downgraded to v2.85 beta and definitely have the feeling that the accuracy is way better again. At least the user-perceived accuracy.

4.) Being back on v2.85 beta I unfortunately do experience a problem I already had before with this version: When the screen goes black while routing somewhere and I touch the screen to make it come back again, the screen turns white and stays white until I reset the Oregon. This happens like 1 in 25 times. Did anyone have the same problems with v2.85beta?

2.1k · February 11, 2009

There is something Oregon users need to keep in mind. Delorme PN-40's use the same chipset as the Oregon. They're experiencing the WAAS failure and some reports of inaccuracy on their units too. From what I can glean from the Delorme forums the makers of the chipset (Cartesio) are working on a fix to the code that runs the chips. In that case, the accuracy and/or WAAS problems may be out of Garmin's hands until Cartesio steps up and fixes their firmware. Currently it seems that Delorme folks are waiting for the same chipset firmware update that we are.

WARNING: Be careful when you tread into any forum discussing the PN-40 and ask it's users if something about it doesn't work. Some of the users take it as a frontal assault on them and their GPS's.

Edited February 11, 2009 by yogazoo

February 12, 2009

There is something Oregon users need to keep in mind. Delorme PN-40's use the same chipset as the Oregon. They're experiencing the WAAS failure and some reports of inaccuracy on their units too. From what I can glean from the Delorme forums the makers of the chipset (Cartesio) are working on a fix to the code that runs the chips. In that case, the accuracy and/or WAAS problems may be out of Garmin's hands until Cartesio steps up and fixes their firmware. Currently it seems that Delorme folks are waiting for the same chipset firmware update that we are.

I think I read somehere that the Nüvi 2x5 series uses the same chipset as the Oregon which, if true, most likely means it is affected aswell.

2.1k · February 12, 2009

One of the biggest differences between a Nuvi and the Oregon however will be the speed at which it is used. I notice that when moving at road speeds (>10mph) the Oregon is rather stable and pretty good positionally. It's only when you slow down to walking speeds is the Oregon erratic, unstable and unreliable. So if you only own a Nuvi or Oregon strictly for automotive use you may not have a problem, but take either for a hike and you might be dissapointed. Since the Oregon is a "handheld" unit it will probably be used more in the hand, i.e. walking/hiking which means they need to get it fixed.

Edited February 12, 2009 by yogazoo

February 13, 2009

Since the Oregon is a "handheld" unit it will probably be used more in the hand, i.e. walking/hiking which means they need to get it fixed.

This is very true... I've seen the Oregon 300 as the natural step if upgrading from my Nüvis but I expect their latest and greatest GPS should have an accurancy that is as good as their last generation (gpsmap 60csx) or better. Right now everything I read about the Oregon tells me that I have very little to gain from such an upgrade.

In theory they could pimp up the 60CSx with a new firmware that improved it's geocaching features. Such a move would make the choice of GPS easy but from a marketing perspective I am pretty sure that is never going to happen.

February 13, 2009

In theory they could pimp up the 60CSx with a new firmware that improved it's geocaching features. Such a move would make the choice of GPS easy but from a marketing perspective I am pretty sure that is never going to happen.

That would solve viewing the screen in daylight problem, solve the track log instability problem, give us a good fix on a WAAS satellite, give us automatic day and night mode colors, and all without smuging up the screen with fingerprints. Hell I'd even pay Garmin to put out such a software update.

February 13, 2009

I reported two bugs to OregonBeta@Garmin.com on 2/4/09 and just got this response:

Thanks for helping us test this beta release. These two issues will be fixed in the next release.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: <Deleted>

Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:36 PM

To: Oregon Beta

Subject: Oregon 300 2.86 Beta Bug

Two bugs to report:

1) Map Scrolling: If you scroll the map and release your finger over top of the +, - or the button at the top (describing the pin location), then the map only pans what was previously visible. It does not fill in what was scrolled from off the screen.

2) Custom POI: If you have two gpx files in the same folder and use the poiloader, then when you press Where To? -> Custom POIs, you'll have three buttons. Pressing the top button labeled "All Databases" will show the busy cursor for a second and then return no results. The other two buttons that correspond to your two gpx files work fine.

I wonder how soon the next Beta will be released ...

JetSkier

February 14, 2009

... just got also a response :laughing:

February 15, 2009

I let me unit get a lot of "sky time" today and then went on a hike. It held WAAS for some of it and it held it at all times on the road. I was getting 6-8 foot accuracy and my track logs were not as erratic as the ones I have seen here. It did take forever for it to lock onto WAAS but once it did, it had no problems afterward. Garmin told me the Oregons work much better after they have built their almanac up, I'm not entirely sure what that means or does, but I would assume it means letting the unit listen to the birds for a while. The track pic shows smooth lines on the way there but more erratic on the way back, this was probably due to it being in my coat pocket on the way back. 2nd pic is showing WAAS while driving, accuracy was excellent while driving, it plots perfectly on the map on mapsource program and it's smooth, not erractic at all. I'm running 2.86.

February 15, 2009

I can still get no lock onto the EGNOS satellites.

Yesterday I went for a 12 hour caching tour, most of which was under open sky, but not a single time did I see the Ds. My girlfriend had no problem getting the correction signal on her Vista.

I also checked my tracks in Google Earth and whenever we were walking along streets the Oregon was at least showing me on the right side of the road (even when I had it sitting in the pocket of my jacket). It wasn't always exactly on the pavement, but it was most of the times within approximately 3 meters thereof.

My gut feeling is that 2.86 is indeed a bit better than earlier firmware versions, but I still fail to get a lock onto the EGNOS birds.

Edited February 15, 2009 by StanByk

2.1k · February 17, 2009

I've been using 2.86 for a bit now, no issues with finding caches...certainly been within <10 feet of caches most of the time. I'm also seeing WAAS lock a lot more stably now..on a three hoiur drive this weekend I had "D" on most of my bars most of the time.

Also, garmin response to my email to the new Beta email address regarding the POI database issue:

Thank you for helping us test this beta release. The problem where the “All databases” will show “no results found” will be fixed in the next release. Thanks for you other feedback and suggestions as well.

Oregon Beta

February 17, 2009

I have been using the new build since it came out and while it seemed to never have me right on top of a cache I still found plenty. However yesterday I hid a cache and due to my own mistake had to go move it.

I brought some friends along to pick it up and when I got to GZ the Oregon read 50 feet away! Thankfully I had my Vista and will use that to mark new hides until this inaccuracy problem clears. I can deal with discrepancies but want my hide coordinates to be a little more precise.

Edited February 17, 2009 by hallycat

February 18, 2009

I just purchased an Oregon 300 to replace my GPS Map 76csx. So far a complete mistake as the Oregon is very inaccurate. I hiked a short road/trail with my GPS MAP 76Csx, the Oregon wtih V2.85 and V2.86 software. At no time did either unit have WAAS turned on (mostly due to the fact that the Oregon won't obtain WAAS signals). The trail is mostly open sky with very minimal tree cover. At all times the signal strength was very high with the Oregon indicating minimal positional deviation. With the GPS Map 76csx the out and back trail almost appears as one line (as it should). On V2.85 the errors vary from minimal to over 100 feet. With 2.86 however the errors are consistently hundreds of feet and peak at over 500 feet multiple times! As it sits right now the Oregon is an expensive paper weight. I use my GPS for remote hiking and snow shoeing. Right now I wouldn't trust the Oregon to get me out my front door let alone safely back from a hike. I have sent the files to Garmin Oregon Beta. I'd post the files here but I can't get them to paste into the post. I have a real fear that this chip has an inherent problem and will never be as accurate as the SIRF chipset in my GPS Map76. For this much money technology shouldn't go backwards.

cheers,

rd.

2.1k · February 18, 2009

rrtsb,

I've been seeing the kind of results your post talks about. You don't, by chance, live in a rocky mountain state? I'm just wondering since some folks I've talked to around here (Montana) are seeing similar and rather crappy results.

February 18, 2009

rrtsb,

I've been seeing the kind of results your post talks about. You don't, by chance, live in a rocky mountain state? I'm just wondering since some folks I've talked to around here (Montana) are seeing similar and rather crappy results.

Hi Yogazoo,

Nope, but I'm close. Just north of you in Whistler, British Columbia. Let's hope at some point we can use our Oregons.

cheers,

rd.

February 19, 2009

If you are from British Columbia than you must be using Topo Canada, which

has routable roads and trails...Don't forget to turn off the LOCK ON ROAD when tracking... These routable trails really wreck a tracklog!

February 19, 2009

If you are from British Columbia than you must be using Topo Canada, which

has routable roads and trails...Don't forget to turn off the LOCK ON ROAD when tracking... These routable trails really wreck a tracklog!

Yep did that. Set up for walking and to not lock on roads. The error is very obvious as if I just stand still for a few minutes you can see the position marker move in large swings. Sometimes over 100 feet just standing there.

rd.

February 19, 2009

Is there a version that we can use to geocache

sorry to be a pessimist.

February 19, 2009

I've used 2.8, 2.85 and 2.86 for geocaching and have had no problems finding caches. From what I'm reading here in the forums, it appears that the problem seems to be with the tracklogs which then people are assuming that the accuracy is in question. If I turn my 300 on and let it sit, it will read the same coordinates +/- .001 (which is only about 6'). I have not tested with the tracklog yet, but I'll give that a shot on my outing this coming Monday.

JetSkier

3.1k · February 19, 2009

I have no problems either. With 2.86 I now pick up WAAS for the first time. No problem finding caches.

3.1k · February 19, 2009

I have no problems either. With 2.86 I now pick up WAAS for the first time. No problem finding caches.

1.9k · February 19, 2009

Used a Or 300 last week in the hills/mountains in south of Spain.

My waas was working, Epe about 5 feet

The tracks I made are perfect and reading them back in Mapsource gives a very good result, also the tracks I made in very narrow alley's in Granada are ok

Edited February 19, 2009 by splashy

February 19, 2009

I've been using 2.86 for a bit now, no issues with finding caches...certainly been within <10 feet of caches most of the time. I'm also seeing WAAS lock a lot more stably now..on a three hoiur drive this weekend I had "D" on most of my bars most of the time.

Also, garmin response to my email to the new Beta email address regarding the POI database issue:

Thank you for helping us test this beta release. The problem where the “All databases” will show “no results found” will be fixed in the next release. Thanks for you other feedback and suggestions as well.

Oregon Beta

I've also received positive feedback from this e-mail about implementation of tracklog=>PC (A30x) protocol in next release. This was critical show stopper to use this device as tracklog recorder for competition purposes (flying, paragliding) and also for some business applications, where there is need to have authentic tracklog data as evidence of presence somewhere etc... Wow .. Big change in Garmin approach a I hope that they will continue in customer wishes listening..

February 19, 2009

Hi Jetskier,

Well glad to hear some are getting good results with their Oregon. When you test your tracklog can you please try to test in "real world" environment...ya' know in and out of some tree cover. Out and back tracks are great to see the deviation in tracks. I wish I thought this problem was me, but my 76csx consistently works and tracks correctly. A 500 foot error can be quite "challenging" when looking for a track snow shoeing in the mountains.

cheers,

rd.

Garmin Oregon 2.86 Beta

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment